CyberSecure certification to help protect businesses from cyber attacks

Sur le même sujet

• 

  6 octobre 2020 | Local, Naval

  Shipbuilding industry pushes back as federal government shops for used icebreaker

  Murray Brewster The federal government is in the market for another used icebreaker that could be converted for use by the Canadian Coast Guard on the Great Lakes — much to the dismay of shipbuilders across the country. A request for proposals to acquire an existing light icebreaker was posted on the government's procurement website in mid-September. The timing is interesting. Federal decision-makers have known for five years that the coast guard needs such a vessel for the region. The request for proposals — which closes at the end of October — was posted as U.S. lawmakers began to push bipartisan legislation through Congress to strengthen the U.S. Coast Guard's capacity to break ice and keep commerce flowing on the Great Lakes. The plan for Canada to buy a used icebreaker follows a separate decision by Transport Canada to purchase a used ferry from Spain on an emergency basis. Build them here, says industry The Canadian Marine Industry and Shipbuilding Association (CMISA), which represents most of the marine suppliers and shipyards across the country, said both decisions represent a loss of domestic jobs and at least $250 million in federal spending that could have gone into a Canadian economy hard hit by the coronavirus. "We're of the strong belief that vessels such as light icebreakers can and should be built in Canada," said Colin Cooke, president and chief executive officer of the shipbuilding association. "We have the capacity. We have the skilled trades. We have the expertise, the technical expertise. We have the shipyards. And that was what the point of the National Shipbuilding Strategy was all about." That shipbuilding strategy is supposed to direct government work to Canadian shipyards. Cooke said the plan to purchase an existing icebreaker and the deal to acquire a former Spanish ferry would both be unacceptable in normal times — but they're even less acceptable now. "We are in a COVID time when we're looking for all sorts of ways to make sure that people are employed, that businesses are able to survive — I won't say thrive, I will say survive — through the lockdowns caused by this pandemic," he said. Public Services and Procurement Canada was asked for comment last Thursday but did not respond. The tender for the light icebreaker, posted online Sept. 18, describes the purchase as a necessary interim step for the coast guard to "bridge the gap while awaiting the delivery of dedicated new vessels." Significantly, the request for proposals noted that the need for such a ship was identified five years ago — around the same time a comprehensive analysis warned that the coast guard icebreaking fleet was in dire straits and in need of immediate replacement. "In 2015-16 the CCG identified a requirement for interim icebreaking capabilities to fill gaps in capacity resulting from ships being temporarily withdrawn from service" for refit and life extension, said the tender. Two years ago, the Liberal government concluded a deal worth $827 million with Chantier Davie of Levis, Que., which operates the Davie shipyard, to refit three medium-sized commercial icebreakers for the coast guard. Used icebreakers could be scarce Tim Choi, a University of Calgary shipbuilding expert, said this recent tender suggests the federal government is operating on the flawed assumption that there is an abundance of used icebreakers on the market. The deal with the Davie shipyard was an anomaly and federal officials "got lucky" last time because there happened to be three vessels available, he said. Choi said he believes the federal government isn't likely to be so fortunate this time: his research suggests there may be only one light icebreaker out there that would fit in the bill — in Finland — and it's not clear the Finns are ready to part with it. "There are very few requirements for a vessel like that outside of Canada and the United States in the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence region," said Choi. "It's not like there's a used car lot where you can just go out and buy these things." The shipbuilding association said it can make a strong case for a fast-track build in Canada. Choi said he believes procurement services may be forced in that direction anyway because of market conditions. In mid-September, three U.S. senators — Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Todd Young (R-IN) and Gary Peters (D-MI) — introduced the Great Lakes Winter Commerce Act. The bipartisan legislation is expected to codify the U.S. Coast Guard's icebreaking operations on the Great Lakes and, more importantly, increase the size of its fleet. "Inadequate icebreaking capacity in the Great Lakes is costing us thousands of American jobs and millions in business revenue," said Baldwin in a statement. "We must boost our icebreaking capacity in the Great Lakes to keep our maritime commerce moving." https://www-cbc-ca.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5751143

• 

  21 décembre 2020 | Local, Naval

  Editorial: Choppy waters for Canada's warship program

  The Canadian Surface Combatant project is moored in layers of unnecessary secrecy. Information that has trickled out has been fragmented and contradictory. This suggests anything but smooth sailing. Author of the article: Editorial Board Perhaps, one day, Canada will have 15 splendid new warships, outfitted with cutting-edge technology, that boost our naval security, create thousands of high-quality jobs and offer myriad industrial benefits. But meanwhile, the project to build the Canadian Surface Combatant vessels remains moored in layers of unnecessary secrecy. The information journalists and the Parliamentary Budget Officer have gleaned to-date has been fragmented and contradictory. This suggests anything but smooth sailing. For one thing, there is the issue of cost. The plan to construct the warships has navigated its way through federal governments since the 1990s, but won't start until 2023. It has been delayed time and again; project requirements have changed; and most significantly, the price estimate has soared. Let's start there. The original $14-billion estimate for these ships is now around $70 billion, according to experts. And, as explained by the Citizen's David Pugliese, officials have done everything possible to keep these swelling costs under wraps. While MPs focus on scandals such as the WE Charity debacle (which involved just under $1 billion in grants), there's been little serious parliamentary scrutiny of the spiralling costs of our new-age warships. Next came allegations of bid-rigging (strenuously denied by the government) from some potential contractors, after the procurement rules were changed. In one legal filing, a company noted the parameters of the CSC project has been altered 88 times during the process. Third, while politicians and bureaucrats have argued there will be thousands of high-paying jobs and other industrial benefits, insiders are more dubious. There are no consequences to contractors who don't meet job targets. What is truly scandalous about the shipbuilding affair, however, is the blind insistence on secrecy from all levels of government. Canadian taxpayers will be on the hook for $70 billion (and perhaps more, by the time the first ship sails). Yet journalists from this news organization and others have seen straightforward questions go unanswered; have been threatened with lawsuits; or have had access-to-information queries (that's the law designed to get answers out of government) stalled for years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been refused information that was nonetheless shared by government with lobbyists and potential contractors. Project defenders may deride those who raise problems. Yet with so much secrecy, it is impossible for a thinking voter to feel full confidence that the government is competently steering one of its most important files: the nation's defence. Such stonewalling reeks of confusion or incompetence. It's unacceptable in a liberal democracy, and must change. https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorial-choppy-waters-for-canadas-warship-program

• 

  7 octobre 2020 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense

  How the U.S. election outcome could affect Canada's environment and energy future

  Alexander Panetta Biden, Trump have deep differences — and each could significantly impact Canada This story is part of a five-part series looking at how the policies of the two U.S. presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, differ when it comes to the major issues of interest to Canada, including energy, defence, trade and immigration. The old truism that elections have consequences is doubly apt for the United States, a country whose politics reach beyond its borders. It's certainly so for Canada. Specific policy issues in a U.S. election hold particular stakes for Canada, including energy and the environment, national defence, the border and migration and U.S. relations with China. In advance of the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 3, CBC will run stories on these five issues, and how they might play out if the winner is current President Donald Trump or his Democratic challenger, Joe Biden. Our first instalment examines one of the most striking differences between them: energy and the environment. If Biden wins Biden drew attention in Canada for promising to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, then doubling down on it. Rory Johnston, an energy analyst at Price Street in Toronto, said a president clearly has the legal power to revoke a permit. What's not clear to him is whether Biden would, in precarious economic times, actually cancel a big project, which would cost jobs and anger construction unions. The Democratic nominee has a sweeping environmental platform that goes far beyond that one pipeline pledge. For starters, he said he'd re-join the Paris climate accord on Day 1 of his presidency. Then he would convene, shame and potentially punish other countries that slack on their carbon emissions commitments. Within 100 days, Biden said he'd hold a global climate summit to push countries to join the U.S. in toughening their climate objectives. He said he would also demand a worldwide ban on government subsidies for fossil fuels. INTERACTIVE Will Biden or Trump be the U.S. president? These states will decide Biden also intends to grade countries on their performance. He promises a global climate change report, similar to the State Department's annual report on human rights and human trafficking. It would rank countries' performance in meeting their Paris commitments. If that doesn't work, he's threatening to wield the stick of trade tariffs. Biden said he wants to impose what he calls "carbon-adjustment fees," or perhaps quotas, on carbon-intensive products from countries that fail to meet climate and environmental obligations. It's not clear how many countries Biden would target. "We can no longer separate trade policy from our climate objectives," says Biden's platform. Canada is projecting a lowering of emissions but not nearly by enough to meet its Paris commitment. Implementing such a tariff could be tricky. To become embedded in U.S. law, it would have to get through Congress — and receiving the 51 to 60 per cent of votes required in the Senate would be a tall order. Some trade analysts believe such a tactic would also be illegal protectionism under international trade law unless the U.S. imposed a similar carbon tax domestically — also a tall order. However, other analysts say there's one tool Biden could use, which has become famous in the Trump era: declare carbon emissions a national security matter and apply the same trade weapon the current president used against foreign steel and aluminum. Any regulatory moves could face another hurdle in a more hostile Supreme Court. Speaking of the environment and trade, Biden is proposing a massive, $2 trillion green-infrastructure plan aimed at new transit, vehicles and a carbon-free power grid by 2035. Biden says the construction would be done by U.S. firms under Buy American rules. He would also re-establish policies from the Obama era that Canada has signed onto, from methane and auto regulations to an Arctic drilling ban. Gerald Butts, who was a former senior aide to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and worked on some of those agreements with the U.S, said Biden's climate policies go far beyond Obama's and reflect a growing recognition of the environmental threat. "Biden's plan would have been unthinkable for a presidential nominee for a major party even one cycle ago," said Butts, now vice-chair of the political risk consultancy Eurasia Group. Bob Deans, a spokesman for the political action committee of the Washington-based Natural Resources Defence Council, called climate change a defining issue for this election. "The American people are facing a stark choice in this election. Two completely different energy futures," Deans said. "We need to be reducing our reliance on oil and gas, not locking future generations into this climate nightmare." If Trump wins In his 2016 platform, Trump promised more oil drilling, more pipelines — and less regulation. He delivered that on several fronts. Just last month he announced a border permit for a multi-purpose rail project that, if built, could eventually ship Canadian oil through Alaska. Trump ditched a number of Obama's climate rules, and left the Paris Accord. (His pullout from the Paris agreement officially goes into effect the day after this year's election.) Trump hasn't published a platform for the next four years. His campaign website simply lists things he's done to slash regulations and promote fossil-fuel development. He's promising no major policy changes. "We would continue what we're doing," Trump told The New York Times, when asked about his overall second-term plans. As far as Canada is concerned, that means a continued commitment to the still-unbuilt Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry nearly one-fifth of the oil Canada exports to the U.S. each day. Johnston said that pipeline isn't, on its own, a make-or-break issue for the Canadian oilpatch, but it would help, he said. He said the oilsands likely need two pipelines completed over the next few years out of the three major projects underway — Trans Mountain to the Pacific Coast, the Line 3 expansion to the Great Lakes and Keystone XL to the Gulf of Mexico — to avoid the type of transportation bottlenecks that have previously devastated Canadian oil prices. "It's never ideal to be just at the limit of your [transportation] capacity," Johnston said. Even with the current president's support, Keystone XL faces challenges. The ground has been cleared for only 100 kilometres of pipe to be laid inside Canada. A border-crossing segment has been built, and 17 pump stations out of an eventual 36 along the route are under construction. That leaves the project about two years, many hundreds of kilometres and some legal and regulatory fights shy of completion. A Supreme Court decision this summer allowed a Montana ruling to stand, which forced the pipeline company to get permits for crossing waterways. Permit hearings were scheduled for late September in Montana and North Dakota. It's an uncertain moment for oil — and the financial stakes for Canada are considerable. It's Canada's top export to the U.S., in dollar figures; Canadian oil accounts for about half of U.S. oil imports, following years of growth. But energy giant BP projects that global oil demand has peaked. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects U.S. imports will flatten out and even decline a bit. That's happening as several automakers say they will keep building vehicles to the stricter emissions standards set in California — standards that are backed by Ottawa. California, the largest U.S. vehicle market, recently announced it planned to ban sales of gasoline-powered cars by 2035. Some of these changes in energy markets will proceed regardless of who's president. Johnston's own projection? Barring a sudden change in the market, Canadian oil production will grow a bit for two to five years, then plateau at similar levels for decades. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-issues-canada-environment-1.5746288